Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Vaktathi wrote:I apologize in advance if this sounds harsh, not trying to trample on anyone, but personally this doesn't sound like something the game needs. It feels like turning a hobby into a sport, in a game that inherently isn't very good for competitive play. There are armies that are clearly better than others along with builds that are clearly better than others or that are better at certain matchups.


I could almost guarantee that whatever champion is crowned, would probably not remain the champion if you ran the event again with the same participants and re-arranged all the matchups. Winning an event is all about not only how *well* you play, but *which* army and *which* build you play, how *well* one rolls (sometimes the dice just won't roll well, I've won and lost games in events with very stilted dice rolls that had they been more average wound have gone another way), what missions are being used, and what armies/builds/players you are matched against. For instance, Mech IG or Mech Eldar may do amazing if it's thrown against nothing but Tyranids and Dark Eldar in Objective missions, but will probably not do so well if it's forced to fight Deathstar armies over and over in KP missions, and vice versa. So trying to crown a single "champion" in that light just doesn't seem like it means much unfortunately.

My 2 cents anyway.

While I respect what you're saying, those same arguments are essentially similar to those who think *all* 40K tournaments are pointless. I've never quite understood why some people (not you) think that tournaments in general might somehow hurt the hobby, which is kind of a similar sentiment to what you're putting forth for a 'finals' style tournament. At the end of the day if a player doesn't like playing in tournaments (or a 'finals' style tournament) then he doesn't play in it. But for those who are interested in such a thing, holding an event helps to enrich their hobby so I don't quite see how it isn't a positive thing.

Sure, if you ran a the same tournament again and mixed up all the variables then the outcome might change, but that's true of any game or sport that has any sort of variables to it. The Giants winning the World Series may have failed if they had ended up playing different opponents in each round of the playoffs instead of the teams they ended up being matched up against. But we'll never, know because that's just how tournaments tend to work.

The 'best' on any given day is only best given the circumstances that they were able to achieve victory on that day.

I think Reece's original concept of awarding a 'champion' based on overall performance during the year would be closer to highlighting overall consistency of players, but that always has the horrible issue of dealing with players who play in separate events and never face each other or possibly even similar competition, something that Golf or Nascar (who do similar things) don't face.

That's why I think holding a single 'masters' tournament is a better alternative. Regardless of whether some people think that the winner of this tournament is 'the best', it is still a great idea because it gives incentive to some players to play in more tournaments or travel to said 'masters' tournament when they normally would not have bothered...and anything that gets players to play in more/different tournaments can only ever be a good thing!


For example, I won one of the 'Sprue Posse' tournaments at Aero Hobbies, so later this year in December they're holding a 'finals' invite only tournie. Since I qualified I'll definitely be playing in it because I feel like I earned my spot. Whereas if it were just another standard tournament I might just skip it. So by having this special event it has spurred at least one person (me) to play more 40K.

Also they've been doing something exactly like this in Australia for years now, having an annual 'ultimates' tournament where only winners (or other high place finishers) of other tournaments are invited.


So if we could have something like this for the Western states or even just California I definitely think it would be a great idea.

@Yakface

Sorry I'm going to miss you in the Sprue Posse Invitational. Work called and I'm gonna be out of state but good luck dude.

Oh, and I agree with pretty much everything you said there. I think the idea of a "Masters" would be great

Vaktathi wrote:well, you did ask

So I was thinking, with all the tournaments that we already have on the west coast, and with more sprouting up, what do you guys think about organizing a California or West Coast Cup? Maybe even a Western States Cup or something?

So, what do you guys think? I think it is a cool idea and would add a little bit of prestige to winning the most tournaments on the West Coast.

And thus I gave my thoughts on it, my apologies if it wasn't what you were looking for.

Hahaha, touche! You got me there.

Of course your opinion is valid and hey, I did ask for it!

Everything Yak said I agree with, and I have been following the Oz maters off and on for several years. While it doesn't generate revenue (and all games start out small and then build to generating money although that isn't really the point of this, this is for love of the game) it would be fun.

Your points about the inequity of the game are all true, but we know and accept it. All game are uneven, even chess. That is fine, it doesn't invalidate the event.

LOL...kind of sucks when someone who would not come to your event, just pisses all over your event for the sake of pissing on it. Ohh do I know the feeling.

Constructive criticism is good, participation in the events is even better!

Haha, too true! This is a battle you know all to well!

Ya, I have to say I like Yak's idea of a "masters" at the conclusion of the tournament "season". I have been kicking this idea around for a while too and have drawn up preliminary ideas for what it would look like. If you're interested in seeing it Reecius PM me with your e-mail and I can send it over. It is a little big/incomplete to post up here.

The only real difficulty I see is getting the TO's on board to report winners in a timely manner. It would be important that TOs and not just participants let you know the winner(s) from an event so that it is official and not just hearsay. Not that any of the up standing members of our beloved game would ever lie or exaggerate their personal performances!

OverwatchCNC wrote:The only real difficulty I see is getting the TO's on board to report winners in a timely manner. It would be important that TOs and not just participants let you know the winner(s) from an event so that it is official and not just hearsay. Not that any of the up standing members of our beloved game would ever lie or exaggerate their personal performances!

I would say that to start with you select a group of TOs who are willing to help out and participate and simply run the "masters" list off of their results. By doing so you would be sure to get the results in the timely manner, and could more easily coordinate the scoring. This can also insure that you are selecting representative tournaments, and not just a random collection of who happened to submit.

As time goes on, you could expand the roster of certifying tournaments.

Yeah, I agree Kurt, it would be easiest to just elect events for the first year.

@Overwatch
Haha, of course no one in this hobby exaggerates anything! And I sent you a PM.

I think the easiest way to do things would be to adopt the scoring system that the Sprue Possie already use as that system has been up and running for a year. We could then apply it to those tournament that are in our roster and from that select the top 16 players from the calendar year.

We could then have a single day, 4 round single elimination master's tournament that uses missions right out of the book with bonus points or VP's for tie breakers.

That way I can shoot for a January 1st launch date of the system and hopefully implement it for an inaugural 2011 season.

Logistically, a one day, 16 man tournament is a lot easier to put on and attend than a 2 day GT as well.

How doe that sound?

Personally I like the one day 16 man invitational event to choose the winner. It would be good, imo, if that event took the form of an 'Ard Boyz event. 2500 points, no Soft Scores, 3 rounds . But I really enjoy the Ard Boyz format and I know not everyone likes games of that size...

I like ard boyz, too. I think 2,500 points opens the field too, and makes a lot of armies competitive that aren't normally.

Time may be an issue though and 2K may be more realistic for a single day 4 round tournament.

Thanks for sending me that information you had written up, there is some great ideas in there that I will definitely be using.

Reecius wrote:I like ard boyz, too. I think 2,500 points opens the field too, and makes a lot of armies competitive that aren't normally.

Time may be an issue though and 2K may be more realistic for a single day 4 round tournament.

Thanks for sending me that information you had written up, there is some great ideas in there that I will definitely be using.

No problem. Again, if you need additional help getting this off the ground let me know.

Now that Hulksmash is gone from the West Coast, everyone else has a chance of winning! =D

Reecius wrote:I like ard boyz, too. I think 2,500 points opens the field too, and makes a lot of armies competitive that aren't normally.

Time may be an issue though and 2K may be more realistic for a single day 4 round tournament.

Thanks for sending me that information you had written up, there is some great ideas in there that I will definitely be using.

Please do not fuel the anti-horde army fire by making a tourney at 2,500 pts. Four rounds in a day at 2,000 pts will already be hard enough if someone wants to try to bing a pure horde army. I know it will be the 'masters' and all, but still...everybody keeps trying to push the points limits of tournament games, but if even a single game of an 'utlimates' tournament doesn't finish due to time contraints then I think you've done a disservice to the concept.

You should strive to make a tournament where every game gets finished to its completion regardless of whether it is a mech vs. mech battle or horde IG vs. Tyranid horde.


At least that's my opinion.

yakface wrote:

Reecius wrote:I like ard boyz, too. I think 2,500 points opens the field too, and makes a lot of armies competitive that aren't normally.

Time may be an issue though and 2K may be more realistic for a single day 4 round tournament.

Thanks for sending me that information you had written up, there is some great ideas in there that I will definitely be using.

Please do not fuel the anti-horde army fire by making a tourney at 2,500 pts. Four rounds in a day at 2,000 pts will already be hard enough if someone wants to try to bing a pure horde army. I know it will be the 'masters' and all, but still...everybody keeps trying to push the points limits of tournament games, but if even a single game of an 'utlimates' tournament doesn't finish due to time contraints then I think you've done a disservice to the concept.

You should strive to make a tournament where every game gets finished to its completion regardless of whether it is a mech vs. mech battle or horde IG vs. Tyranid horde.


At least that's my opinion.

yakface brings up a decent point. I know I advocated the 2500 point level but the need for 3 rounds and completion of games in the final series would seem to trump my need for larger point games Although I would like to note that my wanting to play at 2500 isn't to negate horde armies. On the contrary I wouldn't mind playing a huge SW horde at 2500 points, not competitive but it would be fun.

Yeah, 4 games at 2k is the most that it should be. 2.25 hour games should be fine to keep the day under control. 2,500pts in my opinion just isn't doable with anything that isn't a 5th edition codex. at least not well.

You know, since we're ramping up an invitational ... and ya'll are ramping up a cup ... /brain churns.

@yak, overwatch and Hulk

I prefer larger games too, but I agree that 2K is going to be the most realistic figure for a four round, single day tournament.

@Mike

I see great synergy here! Although this event would take place at either the end of the year in 2011 or beginning of the year 2012 to allow for an entire year of events. o, it would probably tie into NOVA for the 2012 iteration.

You could organize an East Coast cup or something similar, see if we can get some regional masters events going.

@thread
I think a single elimination event suits this best, but what do you guys think about having everyone play 4 games for ranking purposes. Like, the guys who lose their first games play to rank 9-16, the guys who lose their second game play to rank 5-8, the guys who lose game three 3-4 and the guys who go to the finals obviously play for 1-2.

That way everyone has incentive to stay and doesn't feel like they traveled for nothing.

Reecius wrote:@yak, overwatch and Hulk

I prefer larger games too, but I agree that 2K is going to be the most realistic figure for a four round, single day tournament.

I mean, I personally believe that tournaments should generally be held at lower point values with plenty of time for each round to ensure that every game is finished regardless of army types, but I know I'm in the minority...oh wait, no I'm not.

Well, I think I'm probably in the minority here in the US...

Ah, go drink some tea and serve crumpets at your 1,500 point tournaments! This here is Amurika!

Reecius wrote:@yak, overwatch and Hulk

I prefer larger games too, but I agree that 2K is going to be the most realistic figure for a four round, single day tournament.

An observation: why a single-day event? Consider: anyone who is traveling a non-trivial distance (say, greater than 3 hours) is not going to do a 4-round tournament as a single-day: they'll likely have to arrive the night before (as start time is probably early), and aren't going to get home that night (as end time is going to be pretty late).

Assume 2:15 rounds (though 2:30 is more reasonable for 2k pts), with 30 minute breaks, 1 hour lunch (no dedicated dinner, though), and 1 hour after the last game for results compilation & awards: we've got a 12 hour event, if everything runs precisely on schedule. If you start at 9 AM, you're finished (at best!) at 9 PM. If this is happening down in SoCal, and a player is driving from the Bay, that's almost certainly means 2 hotel nights.

Spread your 4 games over 2 days, and suddenly it's a single-night event: drive down the morning of, start game 1 around 3 pm, finish for the day by 8:30, pick up the next day at 9, finish by 3:30, and drive home.

And before it comes up: venue is meaningless for a 16-man event. You can have it at pretty much any FLGS with decent terrain, or at the Bunker - you don't need to rent convention space or tables for 16 players.

You're not in SoCal anymore, Reece - you have to think larger scale!

yakface wrote:

Reecius wrote:@yak, overwatch and Hulk

I prefer larger games too, but I agree that 2K is going to be the most realistic figure for a four round, single day tournament.

I mean, I personally believe that tournaments should generally be held at lower point values with plenty of time for each round to ensure that every game is finished regardless of army types, but I know I'm in the minority...oh wait, no I'm not.

Well, I think I'm probably in the minority here in the US...

@Yak
But how am I supposed to take 18 ML equipped LF, 9 Las Plas Razorbacks, A Wolf Lord on TWM, and a full kit TWC squad at 1500?! How am I supposed to win with out all of my toys Yakface!? HOW!?

I don't hate smaller tournaments necessarily. At the beginning of 5th ed we ran 1850 tournaments at Game Empire and I was fine with that point level. Do I prefer 2k? Yes. Will I refuse to play 1000-1850 point games? No. I like variety in my lists. I can get more variety at higher point levels, that's all. You know I was talking to Darrian the other day and he pointed out that we probably have played each other in tournaments before and didn't realize who we were. The wonders of the internet never cease.

@Janthkin
That makes a lot of sense, logistically. I think that is a much better format for people who have to travel.

And I may live in NorCal now but I still think of myself as a SoCal guy!

You can always try an escalation tournament.

Round 1 - 1500 pts
Round 2 - 1750 pts
Round 3 - 2000 pts
Round 4 - 2250 pts

A little more army checking before the tournament, but it gives folks a chance to show they can win no matter what the points are.

That is a cool idea but the only issue with that is that you would have to play each opponent at multiple points levels. The reason being that some armies are a lot better at certain points levels than others and as such pairings would be even more important than normal. If you pull the CSM player at 1500 it is a lot tougher of a game than at 2250, etc. I think keeping the games a uniform points level keeps things as even as possible.

Now in a one off series playing a single opponent at multiple points levels, that would be cool! Like best 3 out of 5 at 1500, 1750, 2000, 2250, 2500 with the options for different armies at different points levels.

That would certainly be cool and would help to mitigate luck and also prove skill with multiple armies at different points levels. But that is obviously a bit too time intensive for what we are discussing here.

Reecius wrote:....with the options for different armies at different points levels.

I wouldn't allow different armies. You are either a great player with your army at any level or your not.

Having enough money to buy different armies based on tournament size isn't really a way to show you are the best out there.

This comming from a player with 6 different 40K armies.

Just my thoughts.

Something that I think would be cool for a 2-day event would be to change things up a bit on the 2nd day...

For instance, you could do a big, competitive 4-round tournament on Saturday. Then on Sunday you could do a mega-battle with 1000 point armies for each player. The idea would be that nobody goes home with a bad experience. After a long, competitive day of tourney playing on Sat, players would be able to relax and play in a fun game with everyone. Say the mega battle starts at 9AM and goes till 4PM, then do a big award ceremony to cover everything on Sunday afternoon. In addition to the mega battle on Sunday, you could also hold a painting contest, terrain building, gamer's swap meat ect.

While the tournament on Saturday may be the meat and potatoes, what you've really done is encompass the whole hobby and made your own mini-Games Day and set yourself apart from the other tournaments....

Just my .02

Wolflord Patrick wrote:Something that I think would be cool for a 2-day event would be to change things up a bit on the 2nd day...

For instance, you could do a big, competitive 4-round tournament on Saturday. Then on Sunday you could do a mega-battle with 1000 point armies for each player. The idea would be that nobody goes home with a bad experience. After a long, competitive day of tourney playing on Sat, players would be able to relax and play in a fun game with everyone. Say the mega battle starts at 9AM and goes till 4PM, then do a big award ceremony to cover everything on Sunday afternoon. In addition to the mega battle on Sunday, you could also hold a painting contest, terrain building, gamer's swap meat ect.

While the tournament on Saturday may be the meat and potatoes, what you've really done is encompass the whole hobby and made your own mini-Games Day and set yourself apart from the other tournaments....

Just my .02

This is a really cool idea. Except I would be sure to make the "mega battle" an apocalypse game. But other than that this sounds nice.

I like the idea of 2500, but it only would be feasable as a two day event. I think the horde argument is not an issue, since anyone who would be at this event would have to be a capable player and able to run a horde army quickly and efficiently, anyhow. Anyone running mass Nids/IG/Orks is going to know how to play quick and clean or they would not have high placing in a tournament. I also think that 2500 opens up the field a little, since it lets other armies be more diverse, particularly the second tier armies like GKs and such.

Realistically, 2k is probably the most sound logistical choice, though. Its what most people play and is the general concencus. I think going below that pushes things in favor of the top tier armies a little too much.

Phazael wrote:I like the idea of 2500, but it only would be feasable as a two day event. I think the horde argument is not an issue, since anyone who would be at this event would have to be a capable player and able to run a horde army quickly and efficiently, anyhow. Anyone running mass Nids/IG/Orks is going to know how to play quick and clean or they would not have high placing in a tournament. I also think that 2500 opens up the field a little, since it lets other armies be more diverse, particularly the second tier armies like GKs and such.

Phazael, you're a lovely fellow, but have you tried playing with 2500 pts of horde orks in the recent past, in a mission that required them all to be in motion? Simply deploying that many bodies takes a lot of time.

I use every shortcut available, up to and including deployment/movement trays, and my genestealer-heavy Tyranids still take a lot of time to play; 2k pts in 2.5 hours is about the best I can manage against most opponents. 2500 is just not reliably practicable below 3 hours for non-mechanized armies.

I think the points level should be dictated by the circuit - use the majority point level used by the events included (or, for variety, maybe use the actual average).

Love the idea of an the actual average of all the events. Could make for an interesting challenge